Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Obama: Bad For America

"Everyone rises to their level of incompetence. " ~ Laurence J. Peter

I don't have time to write my own blog entry today, but I received this in an e-mail earlier this week and Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun, says it almost as good as I could, except he is much nicer than I would be:

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since w e created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by you r paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.


Dan Trabue said...

Mark, I'm avoiding commenting here since we don't appear to have much to say to each other. But I do have a question or two that I'd be interested in seeing your and your buds' answers to...

When Obama wins in November, as I suspect will be the case, and does so in a landslide, which I also suspect, will it be because the American people are stupid, or because they aren't wise enough to be able to look at and weigh Obama's positions for what they're worth?

Will it be because we, the People are racist and/or hate America? Because we think that socialism is the answer and Obama's our best shot at socialism?

I'm wondering how you will explain it when it happens and I'm also wondering, will those who think Obama is the political equivelent of the antichrist, if they'll choose to leave the country or advocate overthrowing President Obama or if they'll give his presidency a chance and support his efforts insofar as they make sense and work?

Mark said...

IF B. Hussein Obama wins in November, it will be because more stupid voters voted for him than intelligent voters.

It is the Democratic process. Unfortunately, Americans aren't required to pass an intelligence test in order to vote. If they were, we would always have a Republican president.

Edwin Drood said...

thats funny dan becuse isn't that how you explain Bush's victories? We dooped masses not able to look at and weigh. . .

You forget that a democrat has not won a one-on-one election since Carter. You are expecting alot of people to change decades of voting habits for a nice speech?

ELAshley said...

In answer to Dan:

It will be because they are stupid...

...though I don't believe he can win.

Dan Trabue said...

thats funny dan becuse isn't that how you explain Bush's victories?

In fact, I have never said that. I don't believe it. Bush won (questionably) for a variety of reasons.

1. Clinton derailed Gore's chances. If Clinton had stepped down like he should have, I suspect Gore would have won by an even larger margin, enough to verifiably have won.

2. Weak Democrat candidates (although Gore was much much much better than Kerry, he was tainted by Clinton's actions).

3. Bush came across in a positive "I'm a uniter, not a divider" kind of way the first time around. A lovable goof who, if not quite prepared to be President, looked like a decent enough fella.

for starters.

The point is, I never have called the American people stupid. I haven't done so because I don't think so.

I think we are tied to our way of life and those who talk about change have an uphill path to tread. People vote their own perceived interests, doing so is not stupid, although it may be short-sighted at times.

So, since what you suspect about me is wrong, I imagine you all are still going to hang on to the opposite position: That the American people are dumb?

Do you think that we have gotten stupider in the last four years, when Bush won? Were we smart back then but now there are more stupid people? Will that be how you explain President Obama?

Marshall Art said...

Eric posted the same piece, so I'll reprint my comment from there if you don't mind:

Oh, Barry's more than a foreign policy novice. He's a foreign policy idiot.

But who's really talking about his race? Geraldine Ferraro was, but only to say that he'd not be where he is if he wasn't black. One doesn't hear much truth from a Dem, but she has it correctly. In the same manner, many of Hillary's supporters support her because she's, for all intents and purposes, a woman.

I don't care about either. There's far too much wrong with their world view to worry about something so insignificant as their race or gender. Other than that, Blackwell's nailed it pretty well.

As for Dan, who must have dropped acid before commenting,

Obama in a landslide? In your fevered dreams. But yeah, stupidity answers your question fairly accurately. There's no other explanation for his support. I have to believe it's stupidity because to think so many people who support him actually know what he's about, how he's acted in the past as an Illinois senator, the things he supports, it's just too freakin' sad and a sorry statement on the character of our nation.

Mark said...

Dan says, "I never have called the American people stupid. I haven't done so because I don't think so."

Of course not. That would be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

After reading some of your past stupid comments, I would say the majority of stupid people are smarter than you.

But maybe stupid is the wrong word. Blind, misguided, lazy, shallow, willfully ignorant, Liberal, Progressive, etc, are more accurate words to describe about hal the American people.

But in their defense, they are the product of Government schools, and have never been taught how to think for themselves. So they listen to CBS, CNN, NBC, and the like for their marching orders.

Dan Trabue said...

But in their defense, they are the product of Government schools, and have never been taught how to think for themselves. So they listen to CBS, CNN, NBC, and the like for their marching orders.

And was this true four years ago?

It seems you're trying to have it both ways. When Bush is elected, the majority of people are making wise decisions. But when Obama is elected, people are dumb or confused or ignorant?

I suppose what you're saying is that about HALF the US is stupid/ignorant and half not and sometimes the smart half shows up in a little bit better numbers on election day and sometimes the stupid show up in greater numbers?

Okay, well, thanks for the answers. You all think that a large number of your fellow citizens are stupid or ignorant. I get it.

I disagree.

I'll go away again.

Edwin Drood said...

Every Presidential election cycle we are bombarded with assured Democrat Victory. Then after the election we are bombarded with analysis on why the Democrats didn't win an election that they "should" have won.

Obama should learn from his parties past mistakes and start producing substance instead of hype. Stop using focus groups, stop letting the polls dictate actions, fire anyone who has the words "marking" or "relations" in their job title. Stop pimping family members to campaign for you. Stop using euphemisms like “redeployment” when you mean retreat. Stop using celebrities to relate with everyday Americans, we know they are idiots.

For almost 30 years Americans have seen though Democrats tactics and I don’t see that coming to an end.

Anonymous said...

Mark, I read your article and I totally agree. I do not understand why the media treat this guy the way they do. Only explanation I can think of is they want to appear hip and unbiased and definitely do not want to bring up the R word. That being said, why can't the article be sent to all the major media and let them air it. And the reason he very well might win, I am sorry to say, is because most of the people that I know who support him do not read and do not listen to the news, they just like how he looks and how he talks, most of them cannot name a single thing he stands for! Of course, these are the people whoi support him, but won't pay attention to the country after they elect him either! Tina

Timothy said...

Blackwell definitely said it well. Obama will be bad for America, as are all Democrats who run for office. They were hijacked by the radicals in the party and have not been acceptable since.

Timothy said...

But then again, it's been a while since a Dem HAS been acceptable. Maybe JFK. He did, after all, lower taxes in order to stimulate the economy. And it worked beautifully, as it does every time its tried.

Cameron said...

I too think Obama will win in November. But not because Americans are stupid. It's because his campaign is resonating with people, and I think it will continue to do so. Ironically, Hillary's campaign has only served to elevate Obama's standing as the "above the fray" candidate.

I remember less than a year ago when Democrats were dismissing Obama and touting Hillary because he was too nice, too green to survive the wars of a presidential campaign, and Hillary had already served in the trenches and knew how to fight back and play dirty with the evil Republicans.

To his credit, Obama has turned that perceived weakness into a great strength, and turned Hillary's strength into a weakness. Plus, she's a comically colossal liar.

But I don't think that all of this primary infighting between the two candidates is having the effect that Rush is hoping for. Sure, it's making Hillary look bad. But Obama is handling her so well that it's making him look really really good. He's a great speaker and a great campaigner. He seems to have a finger on the pulse of what the average only-partially-interested-in-politics American wants in a presidential candidate. They want sincerity. They want someone who promises and seems capable of reversing the partisan bickering of the last 20 years. They want a uniter. And that is what Obama has cast himself as. And Hillary has only served to cement him there.

It is that persona of a uniter, of being above the fray, that will get Obama elected. It really won't have anything to do with his policies vs McCain's policies. It won't mean that Americans are asking for socialism, or really really like Democrats now. They just like Obama.

Abouna said...

Mark, perhaps it is because it is the "politically correct" thing to jump on the Barack Obama Bandwagon. The majority of the people today, especially those on the left, will make every effort to do, say, write and think what ever is considered to be "Politically Correct", so as not to be ostracized.

If you haven't done so already, check out my Blog post for Wednesday. It is a definition of Political Correctness.

Anonymous said...

I think it is very likely that Obama could win, though I pray it won't happen. I'm not sure that I would say it is because voters are stupid. I think it can be blamed on our "entertain me" culture. Look at the last several presidents. The winner is the better-looking, better-sounding candidate, regardless of what they stand for. Now throw in our growing case of "gimme"s, and you have a charasmatic candidate promising us everything we could ever want. And, because he's "black", we can even feel good about proving we aren't racist by voting for him.

Stupid voters? Maybe not, but uninformed, lazy, greedy. Definately!

ELAshley said...

Mark, here's an eye-opening post by Perri Nelson, a blogger I recently found. Illiteracy is a huge problem in America, and while illiteracy does not specifically point to stupidity, lack of sufficient literacy can and DOES lead quite a few to do stupid things.... like vote for someone because he gives a good speech, rather than how his policies might impact individual Americans.

Obama will be a disaster as president. I honestly don't see how he can win when he can't even win large delegate states. But then anything can happen.

Good read over at Perri's place.

Perri Nelson said...

Far outside the mainstream of America? More like far outside what any person who reads the Constitution knows our government is permitted to do. Not one of his policies makes sense from an economic standpoint. As for his foreign policy, he's proven by his own words that he's a friend of America's enemies.

We don't need anyone like Obama as our president. Heck, we don't even need Senators like him, or for that matter, either of his opponents, both of whom don't understand their role, or the role of the President, or the role of the federal government under the Constitution.

Trader Rick said...

I'll go away again.

Thank Goodness! That guy gives me the creeps!!

Lone Ranger said...

I knew he couldn't stay away. I still think Obama won't win. The party of slavery and segregation will never be the first to put a black man in the White House. We the People aren't racist. They the Democrats are.

BB-Idaho said...

"Unfortunately, Americans aren't required to pass an intelligence test in order to vote. If they were, we would always have a Republican president." That is funny!! Hilarious, actually!!